> 2: I don't see text allowing them to be cleaned up "quickly", which > I thought we had in here already.
It's in the template dialog part of the Auto spec [1]: "The resource MAY be temporary and the consumer SHOULD get it within a limited period of time (at least 15 minutes) " > 3: I don't see any mention of the oslc:usage value for templates, > did we scrap that entirely in favor of TemplateDialog as a type? Yes, we scrapped that entirely. No point i having two ways of saying it :) > 4: wrt #1, we should consider if that's a gap. If I wanted to > emulate a client-centric reader, you also haven't told me that > updating its state to queued/etc Must Not have the desired effect. > Best Regards, John >From my perspective, it's not a gap. If providers want to allow non-eligible requests to eligible ones they can, but there's no call for it in the scenarios, and I think explicitly allowing it might cause confusion when compared with using them as templates. However, we could say something like that about the state, but I'm not exactly sure what... or even if that is true. Perhaps it "MAY not" have the desired effect. [1] http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Specification-Version-2.1/#Resource-Template-Creation-Dialog Martin Pain Software Developer - Green Hat Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation WG joint chair E-mail: [email protected] Find me on: and within IBM on: IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> wrote on 30/01/2014 19:03:07: > From: John Arwe <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], > Date: 30/01/2014 19:03 > Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] OSLC Actions: Action for resource > that does not yet exist: worked example > Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> > > Having just searched... > > 1: Correct (and unsurprising) to say we've not spec'd any way to > initiate execution of a templated request. > 2: I don't see text allowing them to be cleaned up "quickly", which > I thought we had in here already. > 3: I don't see any mention of the oslc:usage value for templates, > did we scrap that entirely in favor of TemplateDialog as a type? > 4: wrt #1, we should consider if that's a gap. If I wanted to > emulate a client-centric reader, you also haven't told me that > updating its state to queued/etc Must Not have the desired effect. > Best Regards, John > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario > > > > > From: Martin P Pain <[email protected]> > To: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, > Cc: [email protected], "Oslc-Automation" > <[email protected]> > Date: 01/30/2014 12:44 PM > Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] OSLC Actions: Action for > resource that does not yet exist: worked example > > > > > It will never be executed *in this > > scenario*, because... *and the client will never change its state to > > make it eligible for execution*. > > The client cannot change its oslc_auto:state to make it eligible, as > its oslc_auto:state is already set to oslc_auto:new, as that is what > the provider wants submitted to the creation factory. There is no > spec'd way to make this exact request resource (at this exact URI) > eligible for execution. The provider has decided that this resource > is not eligible for execution (because it was created by a template > dialog), and it has not exposed this in the data as there is no way > allowed by the spec to advertise this in the data. Therefore there > is nothing about the data that can be changed to make it eligible > for execution. There's nothing to stop the provider doing something > provider-specific, but what I'm wanting to get across is that this > is non-eligible, and that there is no spec'd way to make it eligible. > > For now I've changed it to "This Automation Request resource itself > is not eligible for execution", which hopefully covers both our > points. (Although I'm not sure we introduce the term "eligible for > execution" anywhere. Perhaps we need to include in in the Auto > spec's discussion of template dialogs. > > All other suggestions are good, I've edited the page to include them. Thanks. > > Martin Pain > Software Developer - Green Hat > Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel > Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation WG joint chair > > E-mail: [email protected] > Find me on: [image removed] and within IBM on: [image removed] > > [image removed] > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > number 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Automation mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
